Dixie is a trap for Democrats in presidential race, says Norm Solomon

[kentuck]

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0112-11.htm

<snip>
The notion of carrying several Southern states is often encouraged by media pundits eager for a more "moderate" Democratic standard bearer. But the Dixie trip is a dead end. And a fixation on the conservative sensibilities of white Southerners is apt to tilt the ticket away from the kind of political message that could resonate sufficiently elsewhere to mean victory.

=================================================

I usually respect Mr Solomon's opinions a great deal but I think he is out of focus on this one. Also, I know this has been discussed here before so there is no need to scream our opinion. However, it has been pointed out in past threads that there are states in the South (red states) that are much closer in popular vote differences than many of the states in the Rocky Mountain West. Should we write off the Rocky Mountain West also? There are still several states in the South that are very close in turnout and could go either way in a close election. I don't think we can say the same about the West. So I don't hink we should automatically accept Mr Solomon's argument.

[brainwashed_youth]

1. I'm a white southerner...

and Mr. Solomon is partially right. Here, it's gonna take alot more than Bush bashing to win....and I think the person who has the best chance of doing that is Gen. Clark

[kentuck]

11. But General Clark has one of the most "liberal" messages of any.....

candidate? How do you explain that discrepancy in Mr Solomon's claim?

[KoKo]

2. Living in one of those Southern States, I tend to agree with Solomon in

in that I don't think the candidates need to put the effort into SC, the way they have in Iowa and New Hampshire. They need to spend more time in NC, imho, than SC where the textile, tech, and manufacturing job losses are huge. I think there's a chance NC might swing for Dems, but SC and Georgia? lost causes, I think. The economic situation will have to bring voters to the Dem side, not the candidates themselves, because the RW Repug Fundies are too powerful.

I don't think the candidates should just give up, but that their time is better spent in other states where there's more of a possiblity to sway those who are disillusioned with Bush.

This sentence from the article made sense to me:

The notion of carrying several Southern states is often encouraged by media pundits eager for a more "moderate" Democratic standard bearer. But the Dixie trip is a dead end. And a fixation on the conservative sensibilities of white Southerners is apt to tilt the ticket away from the kind of political message that could resonate sufficiently elsewhere to mean victory.

[Devlzown]

3. A few states are winnable --

Louisiana, Arkansas, Tennessee. I'd concentrate on those when campaigning in the South.

[patricia92243]

4. That is one reason we need to vote streight Democrat - if our state does

not go Dem for the president, we can get other offices filled with dems.

[RUexperienced]

5. Does he know presidents are elected on ELECTORAL votes

not popular votes. (We should all know that after 2000)

<<And a fixation on the conservative sensibilities of white Southerners is apt to tilt the ticket away from the kind of political message that could resonate sufficiently elsewhere to mean victory.>>

If you tilt leftward enough to get an extra five percent in California or New York, how is that going to help if you have already won that state's electoral votes?

[PVnRT]

7. Stop making sense!

Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

[PVnRT]

6. Typical anti-South rant

I find nothing surprising about it. They just want to focus on urban centers in the northeast and on the west coast, and everyone else can go to hell. No wonder so many people don't bother to vote or turn to the Republicans, who at least act like they care about those votes.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

8. Electoral Vote Chart?

Is there a website with a nice chart showing the breakdown of electoral votes in the form of a map of the U.S.? Preferrably with a function that totals the votes if you click/toggle/color in various states?

This is my first post, how many do I need to start a thread of my own?

[PVnRT]

10. # electoral votes = # reps + # senators in Congress

That should be information you can find easily, just go from there.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

14. Electoral College Calculator Page

http://www.avagara.com/e_c/ec_calc.htm

Found my own answer thanks all.

[kentuck]

15. Just curious...How many electoral votes would Gore have had..

..if they had been permitted to count the votes in Florida and he had won? Without the interference of the Supreme Court, of course. But, everybody knew that you simply could not trust that "liberal" Florida Supreme Court so they just gave it to Bush and he got the electoral votes, right?

[newyawker99]

17. Hi Mayberry Machiavelli!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[freetempe]

9. Dems don't need the South to win

Dems need to concentrate on states like New Mexico, Nevada and Arizona that are beginning to trend Democratic. If the next Dem nominee won Nevada and Arizona along with New Mexico he wouldn't even need a single Southern state. Dems also need to win back states like Ohio, Missouri, New Hampshire and West Virgina.

I think the South carries too much importance in the electoral process. Its time to let other states in the East, West and Midwest to come back to prominence. We can't let the Conservative South dictate our strategy. Sure, we can go for states like Arkansas, Louisisana and Florida where the people are more Democratic but I wouldn't put too much effort into places where you don't have a good shot at winning.

[blindpig]

12. long term/short term

I don't think there's a snowballs chance in hell that a dem will win here(SC). Resources should be directed to the swing states in this cycle. That said, the local parties need to be shaken out of their funk with a healthy dose of populism. Our current Democrats are generally republite. Gonna take time.

[kentuck]

13. I am of the opinion that the Democrats should not change message...

jst for the South. Much of the South is like the rest of America. They have the same concerns and same sensibilities. But I do agree that we should not change our entire Party to fit a perceived idea about the South. Southerners like passion and common sense in their polticians and vote more on personality than Northern voters, in my most humble opinion. :)

[many a good man]

16. What would it take...

...to do reasonably well in the south? I.e., to pick up a few states that some say we should just write off? Democrats can just write off voters whose priorities are 1) Christian fundamentalism; 2) anti-abortion; 3) anti-gay; 4) anti-affirmative action; and 5) most of those who are anti-big govt. Does that or does that not leave enough votes in any of these southern states to win them? Which ones?

I am a progressive but I can't help acknowledging that this election cycle is ripe for a moderate centrist Dem because of the conservative backlash against Bush on issues other than the ones I listed above. A Dem who is moderate on the 2nd Amendment, govt spending, and pro-military can probably capture A LOT of these disaffected moderate conservatives and independents.

I also have to admit that this is a golden opportunity for Democrats to finally abolish the notion that our party is soft on defense and national security. We can focus on the homeland, supporting enlisted men with better pay and benefits, and disabusing ourselves of imperialist fantasies that put our fighting men and women in can't-win situations. We can restore American leadership in the world through principle and cooperation, which can ring the bells of American pride for those to whom that sort of thing is important...

I think Democrats can build the foundation for long-term majority status if we build on these principles and then move toward progressive populism. If we can diminish some of the wedge issues and capture people's loyalty by a commitment to standing up for people's economic interests we will have the opportunity to transform society over the next generation. People have to be shown that big government can work FOR them by benefiting them and not just "others" for whom they have to pay a higher tax bill.

We can't just write off the entire south, but OTOH we can't renege on all our principles. The south is slowly changing and will one day be not much different than the Midwest. America's long, slow economic decline will demand more progressive policies if we want to maintain a decent standard of living for our working people. It is inevitable.

[Wapsie B]

18. So chimpy is going to carry

all the South again? Every last state? I'd be inclined to believe that if the idiot was expanding his base. But he hasn't.

[Cleita]

19. I always thought the South wasn't that important.

They are going to vote Republican anyway because the majority of them are racist and flame me if you want but it's the truth. Now I'm not talking about all southerners. It was a southern white woman who showed me my prejudices about things I wasn't even aware of, and there are many southern white people who are as liberal as any pinko socialist, but they are a minority. The rest will either stay home because they don't like Bush or they will vote for Bush.

Now, if you want to run a Democrat that those southerners like, well we have Zell Miller and that's not a compromise I feel we should make.